Chapter XVI: Section IV: It is impossible in a life of Sir C. Barry to omit notice

of the long, harassing, and unsuccessful controversy, which he carried on with the Government in relation to his remuneration for the New Palace at Westminster.

To his friends it is a painful subject; its nature and its effect upon his feelings and his health they would be glad to forget: but the true statement of the case is not only due to his memory, but also highly important, both to the architectural profession and the public. It often happens (it may probably be so in this case) that a battle lost to the individual by the influence of special circumstances, and by the use of overwhelming power against him, may prove to have been virtually won for those who come after him. It will be my endeavour to admit into the narrative as little as possible any expressions of mere opinion, and to tell the story chiefly through the main official documents put out on both sides, omitting the minuter details of the controversy, and the disputes on trivial points, which naturally arose from the antagonistic position produced by its continuance.

The question was briefly this, whether the architect of the New Palace at Westminster was entitled to the regular professional remuneration of five per cent. commission upon the outlay on the works executed under his direction; or whether there were special circumstances in the case, which justified a departure from the ordinary practice, and the remuneration of his services on a lower scale. In the course of the discussion arose another question, hardly less important to the public, whether the Treasury were justified, by their position and by their view of the requirements of the public service, in constituting themselves judges of the question in dispute, in refusing arbitration on doubtful points, and in enforcing their decision, by withholding all remuneration, until its principle should be accepted by the architect.

This is no place for discussing at any length the abstract justice and expediency of the principle of five per cent. commission regularly recognised by all architects as the method of their professional remuneration. The principle of a percentage evidently involves some considerable inequality, when it is applied to works of different characters, requiring for the same outlay very different degrees of skill, labour, and responsibility. It seems hard that the architect of a church, which requires elaborate designs, should be remunerated at the same rate as the architect, who designs a simple warehouse, or the engineer who raises great masses of brickwork, requiring but two or three simple drawings. Like other principles not wholly equitable in their operation, it is recommended by its simplicity and practicability, and, in fact, to those who regard their work as a profession, and not a trade, its commercial inequality is compensated by the corresponding inequality of artistic opportunities.

But it is certainly not an excessive rate of remuneration. Compared with the profits of the builders, who execute the work, it is absolutely insignificant; nor can the remuneration of an architect of eminence bear comparison with that of an engineer occupying the same position in his profession. The period over which the expenditure on architectural work is spread is comparatively large; the preparation of designs and working drawings, the incessant superintendence, and the duty of “measurement,” require a large and expensive staff of assistants. It is, therefore, rare that an architect “makes his fortune,” even if he is engaged in extensive works, and even if his gross receipts are considerable.

So much only is it necessary to remark on the general principle. On the particular case I must add (what will in all probability be generally allowed) that a building of a highly ornate and artistic design, carried out for a public body, whose requirements and instructions varied greatly from time to time, and requiring constant attendance on official personages and Parliamentary Committees, was one for which the regular percentage would be (to say the least) no excessive remuneration. It is true that the gross outlay was very great, but it was spread over a period of about twenty years. It absorbed almost the whole of the architect’s time, and gradually destroyed most of his private practice. After 1842 that practice, which would naturally have continued to extend, both in scale and area, began to diminish, and it is likely that pecuniarily he would have been nearly as well off, if he had been able to devote himself to private work. There was nothing in the general features of the case, which could make it right to treat it as an exceptional one.

It is therefore necessary to inquire into the special circumstances, which were held by the Government to require a deviation from the established usage.

The designs and estimates were accepted, and the works commenced on July 3rd, 1837, without any official communication with the architect on the subject of remuneration. On March 1st, 1839 (_i. e._ _more than nineteen months after the commencement of the building_) he received from the Commissioners of the Woods and Forests (the “Board of Works”) a copy of a letter from the Treasury, approving of the following recommendation from the office of Public Works,[86] and ordering it to be observed in the remuneration of the architect:--

“THE subject of the remuneration to be made to Mr. Barry, as the
architect selected for superintending the erection of the New
Houses of Parliament, having been pressed upon the attention of
this Board, in consequence of the opinions expressed at different
times in both Houses of Parliament against the principle of
remunerating architects by a commission or percentage upon the
amount of their estimates, we beg leave to state to your Lordships,
that in deference to those opinions, we have given the subject our
best and most mature consideration; and that having carefully
considered all the circumstances of this case, the extent and
importance of the building, the nature and description of the
several works, the very large amount of expenditure contemplated in
Mr. Barry’s estimate, and the period within which it is proposed
that such expenditure should be incurred,--we are therefore of
opinion, that the sum of 25,000_l._ will be a fair and liberal
remuneration for the labour and responsibility to be imposed on Mr.
Barry in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the
intended edifice.

(Signed) “DUNCANNON,
B. C. STEPHENSON,
A. MILNE.”

A request on the part of the architect to be informed of the principle on which the sum of 25,000_l._ was calculated, having been refused, he addressed the following reply to the office:--

_Foley Place, 22nd April, 1839._

“SIR,--As the Board has not deemed it right to make me acquainted
with the principle upon which the amount of remuneration for my
services in respect of the intended New Houses of Parliament has
been determined, I cannot, of course, form any opinion, and will
not question the correctness of the data upon which it is founded.
I make no doubt, however, that the proposed amount, although very
far short of the customary remuneration which has hitherto been
paid to architects for extensive public works, is considered by the
Board to be liberal under all the circumstances of the case; and
therefore, with this impression, I have no wish to do otherwise
than bow to its decision. In so doing, however, I cannot, in
justice to myself and the profession to which I belong, refrain
from expressing most decidedly my opinion that the amount is very
inadequate to the great labour and responsibility that will devolve
upon me in the superintendence, direction, and completion of the
intended edifice; and I trust when this is made manifest, as I feel
sure it will be, upon the completion of any considerable portion of
it, that there will not be any indisposition on the part of the
Board (especially if the work should prove to be satisfactory to
the public at large) to award to me the remainder of the
remuneration which has hitherto been customary on similar
occasions.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.”

To this letter no rejoinder was made. On January 2nd, 1841, the architect again addressed the office, stating that “the time was now arrived when some permanent arrangement must be made for the measuring and making out the accounts of work executed,” and requesting authority to make the requisite arrangements, the expense of which he conceived “to be included under the head of contingencies.” The office replied (January 18th) that this duty belonged to the architect as such, and that the expense was provided for in the professional remuneration already fixed. To this statement, on January 28th, the architect replied, pleading that the expense of measurement had been borne by the Board whenever less than five per cent. had been paid to the architect. He received a formal reply, declining to alter the view already taken by the office, and the correspondence was closed.

It is on the letters of Mr. Barry above referred to, particularly on that of April 22nd, 1839, that the case of the Government against him mainly depends. It is clear that his case would have been far stronger, had he at once ventured to refuse the 25,000_l._ offered him, standing upon the invariable custom of the profession, and the fact that his appointment had been made, and the work carried on for more than nineteen months, before any such conditions were mentioned. On the other hand, it is equally clear that he was placed in a position of much difficulty by the action of the Government. He was already thoroughly absorbed in the work, and had devoted much time and trouble to its commencement. His success in the competition had excited great and almost unexampled opposition and misrepresentation; he knew, therefore, that he had enemies, who would gladly seize any opportunity to produce a breach between him and the Government, especially on a subject on which public opinion was at least greatly divided. It appeared to him very hard that he should be placed in such a position. It was natural that he should endeavour to take a middle course, and to accept the terms under a protest, which would leave the matter open for future consideration. It may be added that the Government, by tacitly receiving a letter, which contained such a protest, and expressed a hope of such future reconsideration, must bear some of the responsibility of the unsettled state in which the question was left, and of the controversy which accordingly arose.

The whole matter now remained in abeyance for eight years, during which time the work proceeded. It had been supposed that the building would be completed in about six years, and at an expense of about 707,000_l._ But, as has been elsewhere shown, from various causes, some wholly beyond the architect’s control, some for which he was responsible, and for which the approval of the Government and of Parliamentary Committees had been obtained, the time occupied in building was greatly protracted, and the expense proportionately increased. It was conceived by Mr. Barry and by his friends that the “bargain” made with the Office of Works, if it had ever had any legal value, had now vitiated by the entire change of the circumstances on which it was originally based, and that the time was come when the whole matter must be re-opened. Accordingly he addressed a letter on February 6th, 1849 to the Commissioners for the superintendence of the completion of the New Palace, which contains a full and forcible statement of his case. It will be found in the Appendix. Its substance must be stated here.

After referring to the fact that he was appointed architect unconditionally, and that not till nineteen months after his appointment did he hear of Lord Bessborough’s proposition, he states that, having vainly asked for an explanation of the grounds of that proposition, he had acceded to it conditionally and under protest.

He then contends that the bargain as such has been annulled by acts of the Government, but that he is willing to meet the grounds alleged in Lord Bessborough’s letter. Accordingly, to the statement of “the extent and importance of the work,” he answers, that “the responsibilities of the architect are more than proportionally increased, and the demands on his skill, taste, and judgment are far greater than in works of less magnitude.” To the somewhat vague reference to “the nature and description of the work,” he replies by inviting a comparison between the New Palace and any other modern building, to show that in “variety of design, elaboration of details, and difficulties of combination and construction, the labour and responsibility incurred are greater than in any modern edifice,” and by referring to official delays and perplexities, and the control of Parliamentary Committees added to that of the Government. “It will not be irrelevant to mention (he adds) that already between 8000 and 9000 original drawings and models have been made, a large portion from my own hand, and the remainder under my immediate supervision.” The “statement of the large expenditure contemplated, and the period in which it was proposed that this expenditure should be incurred,” he meets by remarking, that “the annual expenditure has not been greater than that incurred in other public works on which the full percentage has been paid,” and that from circumstances over which he had no control, especially the difficulty of obtaining the whole site, and the introduction of Dr. Reid’s system of ventilation, the period of the execution of the building had been, and must be, greatly increased.

He then enumerated extra duties which had been thrown upon him, on which he might fairly claim remuneration.

He concludes by stating that his appointment had caused the loss of about two-thirds of his private practice, and declaring that the ordinary remuneration of five per cent. would be, to say the least, not more than an adequate return for the “labour, responsibility, and sacrifices incurred in conducting the largest and most elaborate work of the period, to which he had devoted almost exclusively the best period of his professional life.”

Of this letter it would appear that _no notice whatever was taken for about five years_. On February 8th, 1854, a communication was received from James Wilson, Esq., in reply to some letter of the same purport (not printed) from Sir C. Barry to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in accordance with a Treasury Minute on the subject.

Its main points are:--

(_a._) An assertion that a percentage of three per cent. had been accepted by Sir J. Soane, Sir R. Smirke, and Mr. John Nash (attached as architects to the Board of Works), and by Mr. Burton (unattached) for public works, and an assumption based upon this statement, that the fixed sum of 25,000_l._ had been calculated by Lord Bessborough as approximately 3 per cent. on the estimated outlay of 707,104_l._

(_b._) A statement (which it would have been somewhat difficult to substantiate) that a fixed sum had been “not unfrequently” substituted for a percentage, in order to “avoid an extension of the works and consequently of the cost,” such as that to which they advert in respect of the New Palace.

(_c._) An attempt, afterwards abandoned, to represent Mr. Pugin’s appointment to superintend the internal fittings as relieving the architect of labour and responsibility, and accordingly to deduct the salary (200_l._ a-year) paid to that gentleman, from Sir C. Barry’s professional remuneration.

(_d._) An offer (which they considered “fair and even liberal”) to allow three per cent. instead of five on the gross outlay, and to reimburse the architect for the expenses of measurement. In this offer it will be observed that they at once relinquish (it may be presumed as untenable) the principle of the fixed sum, and the bargain made by Lord Bessborough in 1839.

To this letter, after a delay caused by serious illness, Sir C. Barry sent on March 14th, 1854, a detailed reply. This reply addresses itself to each of the three points of Mr. Wilson’s argument, and shows--

(_a._) That the practice of the three per cent. remuneration had been abolished for seven years before Lord Bessborough’s proposition was made; that in former times, when the percentage was paid, the architects were relieved of all measuring and making up accounts, which was done by the Board; and that since 1832 five per cent. had been paid upon many important public works, including the British Museum, the National Gallery, the General Post Office, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, &c.

(_b._) That the increase of expenditure was caused by circumstances not under the architect’s control, especially by the requirements of Dr. Reid, and that, as it involved a corresponding increase of labour and responsibility, it formed no reason for diminution of the rate of payment.

(_c._) That the post held by Mr. Pugin was not such as to relieve the architect from responsibility, inasmuch as it was distinctly a subordinate one.

(_d._) He concludes by reminding the Treasury that mere reimbursement of expenses by no means meets the claim for measurement, and by urging once more his right to the customary remuneration.

This letter was so far effectual, that in the correspondence which follows we hear no more of the precedents for the percentage of three per cent., or of the deduction of the salary of Mr. Pugin.

But to the claim advanced in the letter no reply was made for more than six months. Application was made by Sir Charles for a payment of 5000_l._ on account, and in October 2nd, 1854, the Treasury consent to make the order (_for a payment, be it observed, due under any circumstances_) “on the distinct understanding that they do so in conformity with the principle of remuneration already laid down.”

The architect in reply on October 12th says, in reference to this paragraph, “I presume that I am to understand that their Lordships desire not to be prejudiced by any such payment in regard to the principles which they have laid down.... This advance, therefore, I receive as on further account of my claim, _without prejudice either to the views of their Lordships on the one hand or of myself on the other_; and I propose to avail myself of it accordingly.” Receiving no answer for a week, he drew the 5000_l._ accordingly, and on October 30th received a letter from Mr. Wilson, declining to consider that there are any “questions in suspense as to the principle of remuneration, since their Lordships’ communication must be held conclusive,” and actually insisting that the acceptance of the 5000_l._ must be construed as an “admission of the principle which they have laid down.”

Under these circumstances Sir Charles naturally felt it absolutely necessary to place his interests in professional hands. Accordingly, J. Meadows White, Esq., the eminent solicitor, continued the correspondence on his behalf, and at once obtained a withdrawal of the inference advanced by Mr. Wilson.

A request from Mr. White (on Nov. 20th, 1854) for further information on some points connected with extra services remained unanswered for six months, and was finally met, at an interview with Mr. Wilson on May 26th, 1855, by a withdrawal of the point relating to Mr. Pugin, an offer of three per cent. on all the expenditure, and of one per cent. for measurement on all works to which measurement applies. A complaint on Sir C. Barry’s behalf of the _ex parte_ statements made by the Board of Works to the Treasury and kept from his knowledge, and a request to be furnished with some information as to their nature, were met, after another month’s delay, by a refusal. On this Mr. White addressed a counter-proposition to the Treasury, in a letter of July 14th, 1855, in which, after alluding to the large amount of “extra services” rendered,[87] and the claim of interest on the large sums which, by the Treasury’s own estimate, were due to the architect, and had been arbitrarily deferred, he proceeds as follows:--“I feel that I am justified in adhering to this part of the claim (for extra services) which I fully believe would extend to a sum of at least 10,000_l._ The claim for interest, if worked out in detail, would amount to at least as much.”

He then, after asserting strongly Sir C. Barry’s legal right to the whole five per cent., submitted a counter-proposition--viz., to accept the three per cent. commission and one per cent. for measurement on all certified works, provided that the claim for extra services and interest were referred to some eminent person (Sir John Patteson, Sir E. Ryan, or Mr. J. Shaw Lefevre were named), or a specific sum were paid to close all such claims.

It will be, of course, understood that, in lieu of this payment of four per cent. and the extra claims, Sir C. Barry was prepared to accept the regular five per cent., and withdraw all extra claims whatever, which indeed, but for the attempt to diminish what he considered to be his fair remuneration, would never have been insisted upon at all.

To this letter no official reply was given, and accordingly a general reference of the whole question to arbitration was proposed. Both these propositions were rejected. The services for warming, ventilating, &c., previously ignored, were, after a consultation with Lord Palmerston, agreed to by Mr. Wilson, and 500_l._ per annum offered as a remuneration for them. In other respects the former terms were adhered to; all reference, either general or special, was unequivocally refused; and an offer to accept 5000_l._ in payment of all other extra services was apparently left unanswered.

The Treasury now proceeded to the final step. A minute was drawn up at a meeting of the Lords (Jan. 29th, 1856), simply reiterating the former terms (except with regard to the warming, &c.), and concluding as follows:--

“My Lords continue to be of opinion that _their terms are not only
fair but liberal_. Considering, moreover, that this matter has gone
on for nearly twenty years without any distinct understanding
being arrived at, my Lords are of opinion that it is inconsistent
with the public interests that it should be any longer delayed, and
that they therefore, as far as they are concerned, must record
these terms as their final decision on the points at issue. They
are pleased, therefore, to direct that _no further payment be made
on account, until a final settlement of the past and an agreement
for the future be concluded_.”

This peremptory minute was framed without any further communication with Sir. C. Barry, and presented to Parliament without any of the correspondence on the subject. It was also published in the ‘Times’ of the next day without his receiving any notice of the publication. Accordingly he felt compelled to send to the ‘Times’ next day a brief statement of facts, remarking on each of its clauses in succession.

A last application was made by Sir C. Barry, in an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Wilson, in which he advanced a plea that the original 25,000_l._ fixed by Lord Bessborough represented a percentage, not of three, but of four per cent. The plea was evidently an unfortunate one, entering as it did on statements, which, from the nature of the case, it was almost impossible to substantiate with any certainty, and, moreover, taking the case off the broad grounds on which it stood, to return to an agreement long since dropped on both sides. The Treasury were not slow to avail themselves of the advantage thus given them. In a minute of July 4th, 1856, they again traverse the whole ground, return to the original bargain, and conclude that Sir C. Barry has failed to establish his position; they refer to the correspondence in 1839, and his acceptance under protest of the sum offered, expressing a doubt (which, except in official circles, has not been generally felt) “whether they have not taken too liberal a view of the question;” and state that, as the allowance of one per cent. for measurement, &c., applied to some works for which the services of a surveyor were not ordinarily required, it was more than Sir C. Barry’s due, and should be considered as giving a full equivalent for any extra services.

It was clear, both from the tenor of this decision and the spirit which it manifested, that Sir Charles Barry could hope for nothing more from any friendly negotiation with the Government. Two courses were open to him. He could have brought the question to a legal issue, standing upon the vitiation of the original agreement, and the invariable practice of the profession. Had he been dealing with a private person, he would undoubtedly have done so; and, in looking back on the question, his friends are sometimes tempted to regret that he did not do so, even against Her Majesty’s Government. But there was serious difficulty in attempting such a course; and he himself was much shaken in health, and had lost much of the sanguine confidence of earlier days. He could not hope for much of that support of his claims in Parliament, which is almost the only influence capable of materially affecting a Government, nor could he rely on the aid of public opinion. The only other course was to submit, under protest, to terms which he felt unable any longer to resist. He addressed accordingly the following letter to the Treasury:--

“_Old Palace Yard, 15th July, 1856._

“SIR,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the 10th instant, transmitting to me, with reference to my
letter to Mr. Wilson of the 23rd ultimo, a copy of a further Minute
of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, dated the 4th
instant, relative to my remuneration as the architect of the New
Palace at Westminster.

“It is with the deepest regret and disappointment that I find that
their Lordships have put aside my proposal to refer all matters in
dispute between us to arbitration. Their Lordships must be
perfectly aware that no individual in my position could with the
least chance of success contend with the Government, and therefore
that the power of decision virtually rests with themselves. But
this very circumstance I had hoped would ensure their determination
to refer the case to some authority, the impartiality of whose
decision could not be impugned.

“However, as their Lordships have thought fit to determine
otherwise, and as it is evident, from the tenor of their Minute of
the 4th instant, that no further arguments in support of my claim
could alter their determination, I have no course left but to yield
to necessity, and accept the terms dictated to me; in effect, to
submit to a sacrifice of what I fully believe to be fair and
legitimate claims, amounting, exclusive of a large sum for interest
on payments delayed, to 20,000_l._ at least.

“But, while thus compelled to yield to the decision of their
Lordships, I feel it due to myself and to my profession to state
that I do not admit the fairness of the arguments, or the accuracy
of the statements, upon which it is manifest this decision has been
founded; and further, that, after a reconsideration of the whole
case, and especially of all the reasons which have been urged on
the part of the Government, I remain firmly convinced that the
arrangement forced upon me in 1839 has been entirely set aside by
the non-fulfilment of any one of its conditions; and my claim ought
in justice, to say nothing of liberality, to have been allowed in
full.

“With respect to the completion of the works in hand, I beg to add,
that as every other architect employed on public building has been,
and is still being paid his full commission, nothing would induce
me to continue my services upon the reduced rate of commission
proposed but the strong and natural desire I have to complete a
work, which, by the devotion of so many years of labour and
anxiety, I have endeavoured to render not unworthy of the country.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES BARRY.

“SIR C. E. TREVELYAN.”

It will be easily understood that so important a professional controversy could not go on without attracting the attention and enlisting the sympathies of the architectural profession. Accordingly, when the publication of the last Treasury minute showed the determination of the Government to set aside both the claims of professional practice and the offer of independent arbitration, the Architectural Institute felt that they could no longer keep silence.

The Council accordingly addressed Mr. Wilson as follows:--

“_Royal Institute of British Architects, 16, Grosvenor-street, 9th July, 1856._

“SIR,--The attention of the Council of this Institute has been
given for some time past to the correspondence between Her
Majesty’s Government and Sir Charles Barry, respecting his
professional remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at
Westminster, from its commencement to the present time, with
especial reference to the principle involved therein.

“After careful consideration, the Council deem it incumbent on them
to forward to you, in your official capacity, the following
resolution, unanimously passed at their meeting on the 5th instant,
as a protest against the course proposed to be adopted by Her
Majesty’s Government on this occasion:--

“‘That five per cent. upon outlay has been, and is, the only rate
of charge recognised by the profession, as fairly remunerative in
the average practice of architects.

“‘That it is to be deeply regretted that it should be proposed to
depart from the above rate in the instance of the New Palace at
Westminster, a building involving in its design and execution the
exercise of the highest professional attainments.

“‘That the example which would be set by Her Majesty’s Government,
should the course proposed be carried into execution (a legal
appeal against their decision being practically impossible), is to
be regarded as disastrous to the future prospects of architecture
as a liberal profession in this country, as calculated to lower the
character of public monuments in England, and unworthy the
Government of a great nation, whose obvious duty it is adequately
to foster and protect the genius of its artists.’

“We are, &c.,

(Signed) “CHARLES C. NELSON,}
“M. DIGBY WYATT. } _Hon. Secs._”

They received the following reply:--

“_Treasury Chambers, 15th July, 1856._

“GENTLEMEN,--The Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury have
had before them the resolution passed at your meeting on the 5th
instant, on the subject of Sir Charles Barry’s professional
remuneration as the architect of the New Palace at Westminster,
which was inclosed in your secretaries’ letter of the 9th instant.

“Although my Lords cannot recognise your right to call upon
Parliament or Her Majesty’s Government to conform to the
regulations or opinions of the society in arrangements which may be
made with professional gentlemen undertaking public works, their
Lordships are anxious that no misunderstanding should exist in the
minds of the respectable body which you represent on the subject of
the remuneration of Sir Charles Barry as architect of the New
Houses of Parliament.

“Their Lordships have therefore directed me to transmit to you
herewith the enclosed copy of their Minute of the 4th instant, in
order that you may be informed of the views by which this Board has
been governed in the matter.

“You will learn from that Minute that this Board has not in its
recent correspondence with Sir Charles Barry proposed any new
principle with regard to the professional remuneration of
architects employed on public works, but has, on the contrary,
endeavoured to carry out in a liberal spirit an arrangement, made
in 1838, in consequence of opinions expressed in Parliament, and
acquiesced in by Sir Charles Barry in the following year, as shown
by the correspondence quoted in the inclosed Minute, which took
place in 1838 and 1839, and you will observe that the only
objection then raised by Sir Charles Barry regarded the amount of
remuneration proposed, and not the principle on which it was based.
Their Lordships feel that you might, with greater propriety, call
upon a member of your own body for an explanation of the motives by
which he was governed, rather than address a remonstrance to Her
Majesty’s Government against the deviation, acquiesced in by him in
1839, from the rate of charge recognised by the profession.

“I am, &c.,

(Signed) “JAMES WILSON.”

The correspondence ended with their acknowledgement of this reply, accompanied by a statement that “it was only after a careful examination of the whole of the Parliamentary papers connected with the subject, that the Council arrived at their own conclusions thereon, and framed and unanimously adopted the resolution in question.”

It was not indeed likely that the Government would allow this interposition to modify action, which they had formally adopted and publicly announced. But the interposition itself was very gratifying to Sir C. Barry, as an acknowledgment that he was fighting the battle of the profession, and a testimony of the sympathy, which went with him in a difficult and unequal contest.

It would have been well, if his letter of the 15th had been absolutely final. But, as was perhaps inevitable, difficulties of detail arose in carrying out the scheme laid down by the Treasury, and some acrimonious correspondence was the result. Under the irritation caused by these petty disputes, the architect once more embodied his views in a formal protest, which was sent to the Board of Works, and met by a rejoinder from Mr. H. A. Hunt, their surveyor. Neither the protest nor the rejoinder add much new matter to the facts of the case, and they need not be recorded here.

One important matter still remains to be noticed. After Sir C. Barry’s death, his son, Mr. Edward M. Barry, who had long been his assistant in the work, received from the Board of Works an invitation to undertake the task of superintendence of “the works at the New Palace at Westminster, which had received the sanction of this Board, and for which Parliament had made grants of money,” the rates of his remuneration to be “the same as those paid to his late lamented father.” Mr. Barry, of course, rejoiced to have the opportunity of completing his father’s work, and was willing to accept the rate of remuneration, in which Sir Charles had already been forced to acquiesce. At the same time he felt it right to inform the Board of Works that he did so in consequence of this desire to carry out Sir Charles Barry’s designs; “otherwise,” he adds, “I should have felt bound, on public grounds, and in justice both to myself and the architectural profession, to have called the attention of the Chief Commissioner to the fact that the remuneration forced upon my father’s acceptance by the Treasury minute of January 29th, 1856 (against the injustice of which he always protested) is:--

“1. Less than is customary with architects of standing, and
adequate in the case of the Palace.

“2. Less than has been, and is now, paid to architects employed by
the Government on other works.

“3. Less than was recently offered by the Government to architects
of all nations, in the public competition for the new Government
Offices.”

In November, 1863, in sending in his professional charges, calculated at the rate of four per cent., Mr. Barry remarked on the extension of the work beyond the amount which was calculated upon in the first instance, and for which money had been voted at the time of Sir C. Barry’s death, and on certain additional duties which had devolved upon him as architect. At the same time, considering the case as one of an exceptional character, on which he had already maintained the abstract principle in his letter of June 8th, 1860, he left the matter entirely in the hands of the First Commissioner. The result was that in March, 1864, the Office of Works informed him that, by order of the Treasury, they were ready to “pay a commission of five instead of four per cent. upon the expenditure for the past and present financial years” (March 31st, 1862-1864). For all subsequent works upon, or connected with, the New Palace of Westminster, Mr. Barry has received, without question, the customary remuneration of five per cent. On the bearing of this proceeding on the question at issue it is hardly needful to remark.

Before collecting in one view the results of the whole controversy, there is one subject closely connected with it, to which it is necessary briefly to advert.

In the course of the controversy constant allusions were made to the great expenditure on the building, and especially to the great excess over the original estimate. In fact, the original agreement imposed by Lord Duncannon had for its object the prevention of such excess, by removing what was, I suppose, held to be a pecuniary temptation to the architect to incur it.

On the whole subject, therefore, of expenditure it is necessary to add a few remarks.

The original estimate for the erection of the building was 707,104_l._ and it is not unnatural that those, who contrast this estimate with the amount actually expended, approaching two millions, should look upon the excess as something monstrous. The comparison however of the two sums gives an entirely erroneous view of the case.

The summary on the opposite page, presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1850, of all sums expended, or to be expended, on the New Palace at Westminster is substantially correct, and will throw some light on the subject.

(_a._) It will be observed that of the gross sum nearly 500,000_l._
is apportioned to furniture, fittings, and other decorations (not
included in the estimate).

The largeness of this amount is due in great degree to the
determination, expressed in the Fine Art Commission, and welcomed
with acclamation by the public, of making the erection of the
building a great opportunity for the encouragement of the fine arts
of painting and sculpture. This determination seemed to the
architect to necessitate a far greater amount of splendour and
perfection in the whole internal fittings; for it was his opinion,
strongly urged on the Commission, that the masterpieces of the
painter’s and sculptor’s art, if they are to have their full
effect, must be in harmony with the decorations surrounding them,
and fix (as it were) the standard of their magnificence.

It will be, of course, a matter of opinion how far this principle
has been successfully carried out in the New Palace at Westminster;
but probably few will question its theoretical soundness, or be
surprised

SUMMARY.

----------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------
| EXPENDED. | UNEXPENDED. | TOTAL.
+----------------+--------------+------------------
| £ s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._| £ _s._ _d._
For Works included in the Original Estimate | 522,170 0 0|159,934 0 0| 682,104 0 0
For Works specially excluded from the Estimate| 55,907 3 2| 32,000 0 0| 87,907 3 2
For additional Works in the construction of | | |
the Building | 35,063 3 1| 14,735 4 4| 49,798 7 5
For Additions to, and Modifications of, the | | |
original Plans of the Building | 19,150 1 0| 32,564 5 0| 51,714 6 0
For extra Charges consequent upon Changes | | |
in Materials and Workmanship | 51,721 6 2| 32,000 0 0| 83,721 6 2
For additional Cost occasioned by | | |
increased Ratio of Contracts, &c. | 53,400 0 0| 21,000 0 0| 74,400 0 0
For Works incidental to, but forming no | | |
Part of, the Works of the Building | 27,409 4 0| 16,177 7 2| 43,586 11 2
For incidental Charges upon the Funds | | |
appropriated to the Building, but | | |
not connected with the Works thereof | 38,972 13 8| 5,000 0 0| 43,972 13 8
For extra Works in Warming, Ventilating, | | |
and Smoke Arrangements | 77,533 19 0| 45,583 11 2| 123,117 10 2
For extra Works in Fire-proofing, in | | |
consequence of Warming, Ventilating, | | |
and Smoke Arrangements | 74,825 0 0| 10,050 0 0| 84,875 0 0
For Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures, | | |
and Decorations | 93,195 9 0|404,204 11 0| 497,400 0 0
For Purchase of Property for the Site | 82,382 11 4| .. .. | 82,382 11 4
For the Architect’s and Engineer’s Charges, | | |
and Cost of Superintendence | 41,510 6 3| 50,757 0 7| 92,267 6 10
+----------------+--------------+-----------------
£ |1,173,240 16 8|824,005 19 3|1,997,246 15 11
--+----------------+--------------+-----------------

that Sir Charles took advantage of that increase of taste for
artistic beauty and magnificence, which had grown up since his
designs were originally formed. In any case the expenditure on this
head must fairly be regarded, as in very great degree unconnected
with the first estimate, and deserving to be judged on its own
merits.

(_b._) It should next be noted that nearly 208,000_l._ was taken up
by the arrangements for warming and ventilation, and for the extra
work in fire-proofing which they rendered necessary.

The largeness of this amount will surprise no one who remembers
that for these arrangements one-third of the cubical contents of
the building was demanded; that the Central Tower itself belongs to
these extra works; that large portions of the building were carried
up for the purpose of providing continuous air and smoke flues, in
the cross roofs connecting those in the main building; and that
great changes of material were introduced, such as the substitution
of iron for slated roofs, and of iron girders and brick arches for
ordinary floors.

(_c._) Besides these two chief causes of increased expenditure, it
must be added, that the purchase of extra site and the cost of
works (such as the river wall) expressly excepted from the
estimate, absorbed nearly 170,000_l._, and that a sum of 97,000_l._
was devoted to purposes connected with the building, but not
properly forming part of the works.

These sums amount in all to 970,000_l._ The rest of the excess is
really and properly connected with the works, on which the
estimate was made. On this it is right to observe--

(_a._) That the treacherous nature of the soil, discovered after
the estimate was made, necessitated a large increase of expense on
the foundations (nearly 50,000_l._).

(_b._) That the failure of the Bolsover stone, and the employment
of the harder Anston stone, involved a great increase of labour
upon it, and therefore of expense.

(_c._) That the very fact, already noticed, of the piecemeal
occupation of the building, necessitating all kinds of temporary
arrangements, obstructing progress, and often preventing work from,
being done in the easiest and simplest manner, also tended in the
same direction.

(_d._) That large additional requirements were made for the public
service in the course of the erection of the building, including
the restoration of St. Stephen’s Crypt, the provision of residences
for the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Clerk of the Crown, the
gentlemen in charge of the ventilation of the building, &c.

(_e._) That the upward tendency of prices of labour and material,
within the time occupied by the erection of the building, naturally
told against the public, and very greatly increased the needful
expenditure.

All these causes were at work in swelling the excess of expenditure. Some of them were altogether beyond the architect’s control; for others he was partially responsible.

It was his earnest desire that the magnificence of the building should be worthy of its grand scale and still grander destination. He thought that, in the pursuit of this object, expense was to a great nation a secondary consideration; for the sum voted year by year for the purpose was after all a sum comparatively insignificant in the aggregate of the public estimates. It is undoubtedly true that his own sanguine temperament led him to undervalue difficulties and expense in carrying out what he thought desirable, and his fastidious taste, showing itself in numerous alterations, tended to increase actual expenditure. But these errors (if errors they were) were but the excrescences of that ardent desire for perfection, which was his real and principal motive. Nor does it seem that the public verdict would greatly condemn his theoretical principles. Those who have attacked the excess of expenditure (when they have not followed mere fashion or acted in pure ignorance) have done so, because they conceived that perfection had not been attained, and that accordingly the expenditure had been so much waste. On the final opinion, which shall be entertained of the building in itself, will depend also the opinion, which will prevail on the secondary question.

Much, however, of the action of the authorities in the matter of the remuneration seemed to proceed on the principle, that, since an architect by increasing expenditure increases his percentage, he should not be allowed to profit by what is at least _primâ facie_ a misdoing. On the general bearing of this principle on the remuneration by percentage it is not needful to speak. But those, who knew Sir C. Barry, will be well aware that, in any increase of expenditure, nothing could be further from his thoughts than the idea of his own pecuniary aggrandisement, and nothing was more painful to him than the imputation, expressly or indirectly, of any such unworthy motive.

The fact is, that the present building, and the one for which the estimate was made, although they are one in general principles of plan and design, are yet wholly different both in size and in decoration. To the bearing of this fact on the remuneration controversy, as well as on the question of expenditure, it is needless to do more than refer. The building must be judged in the matter of costliness as it stands; and, when its cubical contents are estimated, and its style considered, it will be found that excessive costliness has been attributed to it without adequate ground.

Such is a brief statement of one of the most interesting and important professional controversies of late years.[88] Without assuming a right to pronounce judgment, certain points may not unfairly be noticed, as summing up the really important features of the case.

I. The attempt to supersede the regular method of professional remuneration by the offer of a fixed sum for the completion of the work _was practically abandoned by the Government_. The question between them and the architect turned on the amount of the percentage (whether it should be four or five per cent.), a question which made a difference to him of some 23,000_l._, but which did not settle any great principle, or materially affect the public interest, in the general question of the relations of the Government to the architects employed in public works.

II. It cannot be questioned that the Government made use of their power to enforce an acquiescence in their terms, irrespectively of the arguments by which they sustained them. This they did (as will be noticed)--

1. By not unfrequent interpositions of delay.

2. By an attempt (afterwards withdrawn) to construe the acceptance of a payment on account, due on any supposition, to be an acquiescence in the principle of their proposal.

3. By ordering all payments whatever to be withheld until the architect yielded to their terms, and by ignoring all claims for interest, on payments thus deferred and afterwards acknowledged to be due.

4. By refusing all arbitration, either on the general question or on that of the “special services.”

III. It is evident that the real ground of their action, and the reason why that action was allowed to pass almost unquestioned in Parliament,[89] was the great increase of expenditure on the building, the delay in its completion, and the unpopularity into which, from these and from other causes, it had been brought. But for these things, the whole responsibility for which they were inclined to throw upon the architect, they would not have ventured, and probably would not have wished, to deal with him on a principle, which, in no other case (not even in the completion of the New Palace itself) did they show any determination to enforce. How far their course can be justified by these grounds of proceeding, it must be left to others to decide.

Such is the general narrative of the erection of the building. It has been given at some length, as forming a curious and not unimportant chapter in the history of modern English architecture. Such critical notice of it, as is necessary here, must be reserved for the next chapter.